Providing search results based on network diversities

ABSTRACT

A method and system for evaluating the reputation of a member of a social networking system is disclosed. Consistent with an embodiment of the invention, one or more attributed associated with a social networking profile of a member of a social network are analyzed. Based on the analysis, ranking, rating or score is assigned to a particular category of reputation. When requested, the ranking, rating or score is displayed to a user of the social network.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.13/852,696, filed Mar. 28, 2013, entitled “DETERMINING MEASURES OFINFLUENCE OF USERS OF A SOCIAL NETWORK,” which is a continuation of U.S.application Ser. No. 13/209,315, filed Aug. 12, 2011, entitled “METHODAND SYSTEM FOR REPUTATION EVALUATION OF ONLINE USERS IN A SOCIALNETWORKING SCHEME,” which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.11/219,035, filed Sep. 1, 2005, entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FORREPUTATION EVALUATION OF ONLINE USERS IN A SOCIAL NETWORKING SCHEME,”which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/607,040,filed Sep. 2, 2004, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/625,287,filed Nov. 4, 2004, each of which is incorporated by reference herein inits entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to systems and methods forreputation evaluation of online users in a social networking scheme.

BACKGROUND

Oftentimes the most relied on sources of information concerning thereputation of a person, organization or service are the recommendationsof friends, family, neighbors and/or colleagues. For example if oneneeded to find a local dentist, he/she might ask friends and neighborsin the area who their dentist is or if they had any suggestions.Referrals provided via these trusted sources would tend to be highlyregarded, though not necessarily because they are correct, but ratherbecause they come from people the inquirer knows and trusts. Likewise,when a vice president of a company is seeking a new marketing manager,she may ask colleagues, employees and friends if they can recommendsomeone who has the right qualifications for the position. Again anyrecommendations from these sources may tend to be more highly regardedthan, say referrals from professional recruiters, because the vicepresident knows and trusts the sources of the referrals. Indeed, theinquirer could gage her level of trust depending on how well she knowsthe person making the referral. In some ways, the subject of thereferral becomes imbibed with the same attributes as the person makingthe referral, at least in the mind of the inquirer. Of course, thereferral may not come from the inquirer's immediate contacts but insteadfrom contacts of those contacts. For example if the vice president'simmediate contacts do not know anyone with the qualifications she islooking for, these contacts could then consult then trusted contacts forsomeone who may be a fit. This process could continue for severaliterations involving multiple degrees of connections until ultimately acandidate is found for the marketing manager position. This network offriends and other known and trusted individuals, and their friends andcontacts, is a social network.

More generally, social networks may be regarded as networks of peopleconnected by trust, shared values, and/or mutual need for cooperation.Social communities, cooperative business relationships, and professionalassociations are all examples of social networks. Social networkingsystems create social networks to find business partners, clients andpeople with shared interests and values. Such systems are also used toshare knowledge, build and strengthen communities, build teams, and mapand analyze complex organizational networks.

This concept has expanded to online communities where people share anduse these contacts to find new friends, romantic interests, and businesspartners or employees. This provides an easier and more organized way tomanage and develop one's social network. A person may receive aninvitation from a friend or colleague to join an online community ordecide to join independently. To join a user must set up an accountwhich may include an account name and password and the user may berequired to set up a personal profile which lists activities andinterests and/or resume details such as past positions and experiences.The user can then add contacts to his or her network, those contacts canadd their contacts and so forth and so an entire online social networkis created. A user can then use his/her network to search for a newfriend, romantic interest, business partner or employee. Most onlinesocial networks show the links for each potential target listed in asearch so the user knows how far removed the target is. The target maybe a first-degree contact meaning he/she is within the user's immediatefriends and contacts, or he/she may be a second, third or furtherremoved contact.

In addition, many of these online communities have some sort ofreputation system where a user can either write a testimonial about aperson in their network or rate that individual based on severalcharacteristics. The purpose of a reputation system is to buildconfidence and trust in and between users in the online community.Reputation systems store reference information plus evaluations andendorsements in electronic databases to be associated with users'profiles and resumes. Searchers use these stored references andendorsements to enhance their ability to find others who not only appearto match their requirements, but who have also received positiveendorsements.

Many existing reputation systems in online communities suffer from thedrawback that most people do not truly know one another, other than inthe context of the online community. That is, the users have limitedprior experience with and personal knowledge of other people in theircommunity. For example, many online retail stores have reputationsystems which permit customers to comment on a particular product theyhave purchased and/or rate the service or product based on somepredetermined criteria. This data is then aggregated and a score isdisplayed (sometimes along with individuals' comments) next to aparticular product. The data so collected, aggregated and ultimatelydisplayed is based on transactions that occur only in the onlinecommunity environment and there is no personal connection or networkbetween the customers beyond interest in the same product or service.Thus to develop a reputation system, such online communities depend onratings of content, immediate online behavior and results of onlinetransactions, which are then aggregated into a statistically objectivecollective reputation.

Online social networking systems create additional, unique opportunitiesfor a reputation system that is much more robust and accessible.Existing systems allow members of the community to write a testimonialor endorsement of certain people in their network of contacts. Forexample a user, Jane, may know that one of her contacts, Bob, is lookingfor a job. Since Jane has previously worked with Bob and knows him to bean excellent market research analyst as well as a hard worker and easyto get along with, she might write an endorsement about Bob that wouldbe included as part of Bob's online profile. When a potential employeris searching the online network and comes across Bob's online profilethe employer can immediately see the reference in Bob's profile.

The problem for the potential employer then becomes how to ensure suchan endorsement is valid, complete, and accurate. More generally, uses ofonline social networks need mechanisms to build confidence in theirsystem. The online community usually provides the “degree of connection”so the searcher can see how far removed the target and the endorser(s)are from her primary contacts. Typically, however, as these associationsget more and more remote, the searcher's confidence level wanes. Theendorsement may be written by someone unknown to the searcher such as afriend, of a friend, of a friend. How does the searcher know that this“friend” writing the endorsement is a trusted source and so the targetis indeed a qualified individual? With many online communities nowattracting hundreds of thousands of users, a typical search may returnlarge lists or potential targets that are quite far removed from thesearcher's most trusted and reliable contacts and so this problem israpidly becoming one of significant importance.

It is also true that people have a tendency to write only positiveendorsements, so it is not clear if one is getting accurate and completeinformation from the references. Some social networks provide averification report that is created through an automated process ofreference checking by sending emails to sources to verify certaininformation on a particular person. However this may only be helpful forverifiable information such as resume details like employers, clients,schools, test scores, degrees, certifications, published reviews andarticles, and organization membership. The question of how to get moreinformation about a person (such as the person's work ethic and style)when trying to fill a particular employment position, how to contactreferences who can speak about a person, or how to obtain moreinformation on references provided by the person is left unresolved.

It is important to create a community where users have confidence thatthe reputation system provides accurate and valid information. Presentlyavailable reputation systems for online social network communities areinadequate to provide the appropriate level of confidence and validityand to allow further communication with an endorser of a person. Thepresent invention addresses these inadequacies.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and notlimitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which likereference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a network environment, consistent with an embodimentof the invention, including clients and servers;

FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a software architecture forsupporting methods of the present invention;

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of various reputation indicators for acategory of reputation measuring the number of direct member connectionsa particular user has established in a social networking community;

FIG. 4 illustrates a search results display, including a variety ofreputation indicators, for a user interface of a social networkingcommunity, according to an embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 5 illustrates an example user interface showing detailedinformation about various reputation indicators for a particular useraccording to one embodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Methods and systems for reputation evaluation of online users in asocial networking scheme are described herein. Although discussed withreference to certain illustrated embodiments, upon review of thisspecification, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize thatthe present scheme may find application in a variety of systems.Therefore, in the following description the illustrated embodimentsshould be regarded as exemplary only and should not be deemed limitingin scope.

In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerousspecific details are set forth in order to provide a thoroughunderstanding of the present invention. It will be evident, however, toone skilled in the art that the present invention may be practicedwithout these specific details. In some instances, well-known structuresand devices are shown in block diagram form, rather than in detail, inorder to avoid obscuring the present invention. These embodiments aredescribed in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art topractice the invention, and it is to be understood that otherembodiments may be utilized and that logical, mechanical, electrical,and other changes may be made without departing from the scope of thepresent invention.

Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented interms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on databits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions andrepresentations are the means used by those skilled in the dataprocessing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their workto others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally,conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of acts leading to a desiredresult. The acts are those requiring physical manipulations of physicalquantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take theform of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored,transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It hasproven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, torefer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters,terms, numbers, or the like.

It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar termsare to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and aremerely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unlessspecifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion,it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizingterms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or“determining” or “displaying” or the like, refer to the action andprocesses of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device,that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical(electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers andmemories into other data similarly represented as physical quantitieswithin the computer system memories or registers or other suchinformation storage, transmission or display devices.

The present invention can be implemented by an apparatus for performingthe operations described herein. This apparatus may be speciallyconstructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise ageneral-purpose computer, selectively activated or reconfigured by acomputer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may bestored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but not limitedto, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, andmagnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random accessmemories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any typeof media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupledto a computer system bus.

The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently relatedto any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purposesystems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachingsherein, or it may prove convenient to construct a more specializedapparatus to perform the required method. For example, any of themethods according to the present invention can be implemented inhard-wired circuitry, by programming a general-purpose processor or byany combination of hardware and software. One of skill in the art willimmediately appreciate that the invention can be practiced with computersystem configurations other than those described below, includinghand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based orprogrammable consumer electronics, DSP devices, network PCs,minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The invention can alsobe practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks areperformed by remote processing devices that are linked through acommunications network. The required structure for a variety of thesesystems will appear from the description below.

The methods of the invention may be implemented using computer software.If written in a programming language conforming to a recognizedstandard, sequences of instructions designed to implement the methodscan be compiled for execution on a variety of hardware platforms and forinterface to a variety of operating systems. In addition, the presentinvention is not described with reference to any particular programminglanguage. It will be appreciated that a variety of programming languagesmay be used to implement the teachings of the invention as describedherein. Furthermore, it is common in the art to speak of software, inone form or another (e.g., program, procedure, application . . . ), astaking an action or causing a result. Such expressions are merely ashorthand way of saying that execution of the software by a computercauses the processor of the computer to perform an action or produce aresult.

It is to be understood that various terms and techniques are used bythose knowledgeable in the art to describe communications, protocols,applications, implementations, mechanisms, etc. One such technique isthe description of an implementation of a technique in terms of analgorithm or mathematical expression. That is, while the technique maybe, for example, implemented as executing code on a computer, theexpression of that technique may be more aptly and succinctly conveyedand communicated as a formula, algorithm, or mathematical expression.Thus, one skilled in the art would recognize a block denoting A+B=C asan additive function whose implementation in hardware and/or softwarewould take two inputs (A and B) and produce a summation output (C).Thus, the use of formula, algorithm, or mathematical expression asdescriptions is to be understood as having a physical embodiment in atleast hardware and/or software (such as a computer system in which thetechniques of the present invention may be practiced as well asimplemented as an embodiment).

A machine-readable medium is understood to include any mechanism forstoring or transmitting information in a form readable by a machine(e.g., a computer). For example, a machine-readable medium includes readonly memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storagemedia; optical storage media; flash memory devices; electrical, optical,acoustical or other form of propagated signals (e.g., carrier waves,infrared signals, digital signals, etc.); etc.

One embodiment of the present invention may be implemented as computersoftware incorporated as part of an online social networking system. Thesystem operates with a computer system using a Windows, Macintosh, UNIX,Linux or other operating system equipped with a Web browser application,or other Web-enabled device capable of connecting to the Internet orother network system. It should be noted that the term “Internet” isintended to encompass similar systems and nomenclature (i.e., World WideWeb or “www”) comprising the capability to communicate and accessinformation through a network, telephone connections, ISDN connections,DSL connections, cable modem, fiber optic network, etc. The presentinvention should not be limited in its communication nomenclature; thepresent invention is applicable to any system that is accessible bymeans of a Web browser, or other means of communicatively coupling onedevice or server to another.

System Operation and Architecture

To better understand this system, consider first the illustration shownin FIG. 1. In FIG. 1, a network 10 includes a number of clients 12 andservers. The servers may be divided among primary hosts 14 and centralservers 16. Primary hosts 14 may serve a number of local clients 12while central servers 16 may interconnect a number of primary hosts 14and/or serve various remote clients 12. Although only a limited numberof clients 12, primary hosts 14 and central servers 16 are shown in thisdiagram, it should be understood that any number or configuration ofthese computer-based components may be used in various embodiments ofthe present invention. Further, some or all of these components mayexist on mobile platforms, such as handheld computer systems and thelike, and in peer-to-peer platforms. The network 10 may be a portion ofa much larger computer network or networks, such as a corporateenterprise network or even the Internet. The clients 12 and variousservers 14, 16 may be combinations of hardware and/or softwareconfigured in accordance with the teachings presented herein and the useof any specific programming language(s) and/or hardware platform(s) isnot critical to the present invention.

From the diagram, it should be clear that various intercommunicationsamongst network elements might take place. For example, communicationbetween clients 12 and primary hosts 14 are quite common, as arecommunications between primary hosts 14 and central server 16. So tooare communications between various primary hosts 14 contemplated, as arecommunications between central server 16 and clients 12. Indeed, evenpeer-to-peer communications between clients 12 are contemplated withinvarious embodiments of the present invention. The types of communicationlinks that support these communications paths are not critical to thepresent invention and may include both wired and wireless communicationlinks, with appropriate communication protocols. Further, the specificroutine protocols that are used to ensure delivery of the messages amongthese network elements are not critical to the present invention and anyappropriate routing protocols (e.g., TCP/IP, AppleTalk, etc.) may beused.

FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a software architecture forsupporting the methods of the present invention. Such a system isdescribed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/852,336 titled “Methodand Apparatus for Internet-Based Human Network Brokering,”incorporatedherein by reference. As shown in FIG. 2, client 12 includes a clientapplication program 18, which may make use of a conventional Web browser20, as discussed above. The client application 18 includes a personalprofile builder 22, a personal gatekeeper (or “access agent”) 24, and apersonal search agent 26. The personal building agent 22 guides users inthe process of building profiles which are most effective when relatedto their objectives. The personal access agent 24 allows users toprotect the information in their profiles and their attention frontinappropriate access, and makes their personal profiles connectable. Thepersonal search agent 26 is a tool that guides a user in constructing aprofile for a search target.

The client application 18 may reside in on-board storage 28 (e.g., mainmemory and/or a hard drive or other long-term or non-volatile storagedevice), and this storage unit may also be used for temporary storage ofvariables, etc. in the conventional fashion. The server-side software(which may reside in primary hosts 14 and/or central servers 16)includes a conventional Web server application 30 (e.g., to manage httprequests and other conventional Web server functions) and an applicationserver 32 (which, as indicated above, may be based on Java programmingtechnology).

Application server 32 includes various elements, such as search agents34, access agents 36, network broker agents 38, verification agents 40,and a reputation system 41. The search agents 34 and access agents 36act similar to the personal search and access agents described above.The network broker 38 is a network agent that emulates the function of ahuman broker negotiating between users' personal search and accessagents. The verification agent 40 is a network agent that by automatedprocess, authenticates and verifies information users have recorded intheir profiles. The reputation system 41, discussed in greater detailbelow, can be integrated in the social networking system as shown inthis example or can be implemented as a plug-in as a separate systemoutside the social networking system.

Servers 14, 16 also include (and/or have access to) one or moredatabases 42 which communicate with the http server 30 and theapplication server 32 and provide storage facilities for theseapplications. The types of information stored in database 42 by theapplication server 32 may contain a secure, composite data structurethat maintains information about all users of the system plus a recordof prior searches and matches, which the network broker agent 38 canaccess to learn and reapply successful search strategies.

Many components of the present system may be embodied as Java applets orapplications to maintain the richness of an object-oriented approachwhich using a conventional web browser and HTML (hypertext mark-uplanguage) and XML (extensible markup language) as the delivery platformfor the user interface. For compatibility with Java-based interfaceagents that might be delivered through the user interface, Javaapplication server 32 should dynamically generate the HTML (“compiledHTML”). There should be a high capacity database on or accessible to theserver 14, 16, and more limited “persistent store” capabilities on theclient-side 12.

The present invention is not limited to the above-described softwarearchitecture. In an alternative embodiment, server 14 may be a Webserver having a server-side database, and client-side Web browsers mayinteract with server 14 using conventional Internet communicationprotocols. When interacting via a Web browser in this fashion, typicallynothing is stored on the client side. All persistent user instructionsare instead stored on server 14. In addition, message servers (such ase-mail servers) may facilitate sending invitations, acceptances, andrequests and other messages between individuals, and also facilitatesending messages or instructions between the server 14 and clients 12.Embedded links in e-mails can be used to direct users, in context, to aparticular page on the website, or activate server-based programs. Inaddition, software for use on client machines may be downloaded by auser from the Web server 12 and installed on the user's machine. Thissoftware can interface with desktop applications (such as MicrosoftOutlook and other address books and personal information managers) sothat much of the functionality and data storage described above can beincorporated on a user's client machine and without being connected tothe Internet.

Social Networking System Operation

To join a social networking system a user may complete a registrationpage and enter a valid email address as a unique identifier, plus aprivate password. The user then may set up her profile and enter hercontacts. The profile describes the user's background, experience,current and prior interests, capabilities, positions and tiles, skills,values, projects, goals, etc. A similar profile is created describingthe user's employing organizations. The user can add contacts to hernetwork by entering contact and relationship information, and profileinformation for the contact, or a link to the contact's own profile onthe system. The contact information may also be automatically uploadedor extracted from other sources such as an electronic address book, andauthorized by the user for use in the system. A user may not want heraddress book integrated in the system. In this case a user's addressbook would be uploaded, but not integrated into the system and possiblyhidden from others. The profile and contact information may be stored ineither a central database or in distributed databases 42.

The user can then invite contacts to become mutually confirmed directcontacts. To do so, person A would enter person B's name and email plusan invitation message. A message would be sent to B. If B is not amember of the system, the message to B would additionally includeinstructions and a link to allow B to join the system. If A's invitationis accepted, both profiles would be updated to show that A and B aremutually confirmed connections.

Once a user joins the online social network, the user can search forpeople who meet various requirements. For example an employer searchingfor a potential employee may enter an appropriate search query andlaunch a search. One or more targets found as part of the search maysubsequently be displayed to the searcher. Targets may be users of thesystem or non-users of the system who are found in address books ofusers. The connection path between the searcher and the target may alsobe displayed for each target. A connection path is a chain ofconnections between the searcher and the target and may extend from oneto several degrees of separation. For example, a three-degree connectionwould be where the searcher knows C1 (Connector 1) who knows C2 whoknows the target. The connection path to each target can be displayed inthe search results or included as an option a user can select for moreinformation regarding the target.

The search results may include summary information about each targetmatching the search and targets may be sorted by one or more factors.Some factors may include length of connection path, strength ofconnections, percent relevance of the match, etc. The searcher may alsobe provided the option to view a full or a partial profile of anytarget.

Contact with a target can be requested by any appropriate means. Forexample, the searcher may be prompted to write a message to the targetdescribing the purpose of the request, plus a message to any interveningconnections (e.g., C1) that connect the searcher to a connection chainleading to a target. The message(s) may be sent via e-mail or othercommunication means either via the connectors or directly to the targetaccording to various preferences of the searcher, connectors and target.

For example, if the searcher has a three-degree connection to the target(searcher→C1→C2→target), the request message may go first to C1, thesearcher's direct connection. If C1 approves the request, it is thensent on to C2. If C2 approves the request, it is then sent to thetarget. If the target or any connections along the chain rejects therequest, a message may be sent to the searcher stating the request wasdenied. Otherwise a message is sent to the searcher that the targetaccepted the request and the target would then contact the searcher orvice versa.

Reputation System

It is important that reputation systems for online social networkcommunities provide features to create an environment of trust, buildconfidence in users, ensure accurate and valid information, and allowfurther communication between references/endorsers and users in general.This invention creates this environment by providing informationregarding a searcher's relationship with a reference and providing meansto determine the reliability of the reference's opinions about a target.Specifically, the present system provides methods to request and createendorsements, get more information about an endorser, make contact withan endorser, create sealed/hidden endorsements, find and make contactwith likely endorsers, and verify and validate endorsers; provides anendorsement interface; and further describes strategies for measuringinfluence and reputation to create a more accurate and thus more trustedreputation system in a social networking community.

Reputation system 41 (of FIG. 2) stores reference information along withactual evaluations and endorsements in electronic databases 42 to beassociated with users' profiles and resumes. These stored references andendorsements may be used so as to enhance the ability of searchers tofind targets who not only appear to match their search requirements, butwho have also received positive endorsements by others.

Further, using reputation system 41 a user can request endorsementsfrom, and offer endorsements to other users in the system. For example,using appropriate menus or other interface elements (e.g., assuming auser interacts with the social networking system via a Web browser), auser can choose to request an endorsement from another user or write anendorsement for another user in the system. A user writing anendorsement (an endorser) can endorse a particular user's capabilitiesand qualities in general or endorse a particular element of theendorsee's profile. In some cases, the endorsee may be given the optionto accept or decline the endorsement. In such cases, and if theendorsement is accepted, the endorsee's profile will be updated toinclude the new endorsement. In other cases, endorsee's may not bepermitted to accept or decline endorsements, however, in such casesmechanisms (such as independent review or other filtering) may beprovided to avoid potentially libelous material from becoming associatedwith a use's profile.

Assuming a user has one or more endorsements associated with his/herprofile, now when that profile is selected (e.g., by a searcher seekinga target of a new search), some or all of the endorsements added byendorsers may be viewable. Each endorsement so viewable may include theendorsement itself (e.g., in the font of a free text message, responseto prompts, categorized score (e.g., for one or more criteria), orvarious combinations of the foregoing). In addition, the endorser'sname, a link for viewing more information about the endorser (e.g., theprofile of the endorser), information on how to make contact with theendorser, the relationship of the endorser to the target (e.g., theendorser may be a client or supervisor of the target), how long theendorser and target have known each other, and the relationship of thetarget to the searcher may also be provided.

Using the facilities of the social networking system, the searcher maymake contact with the endorser. In some cases, this contact may be madeby first contacting the endorsee and having her forward a request forcontact directly to the endorser, or it may be based on other conditionsspecified by the endorser. For example, an endorser may specify that anysearcher should always make direct contact with her to discuss theendorsee, or that only those searchers within a certain degree ofconnection to the endorser should make direct contact.

Thus far, the endorsements that have been discussed are “openendorsements”, meaning that the endorsee can view the endorsement(though he/she may not be able to accept/reject it). To increase userconfidence in the objectivity and completeness of endorsements, anendorsee may also choose to accept sealed endorsements. Sealedendorsements cannot be rejected by the endorsee nor, in some cases, beviewed by the endorsee. The endorser is fully in control over whatappears in the endorsement.

A user may choose to accept such sealed endorsements by, say, setting anoption in his/her profile or preferences (e.g., an accept “sealedendorsements” data field set to TRUE). This setline may then be used todisplay a special symbol that alerts searchers viewing the user'sprofile that he/she accepts sealed endorsements, and/or act as anadditional weight when computing endorsement reliability scores.

A special case of sealed endorsements involves endorsers that wish torestrict viewing of an endorsement to only selected users (typically,not including the endorsee). This can be done by setting restrictivelimits on who can access the endorsement (e.g., limiting viewing thereofto only first degree connections of the endorser). To create this hiddenendorsement a special endorsements page would be displayed that only theendorser can view and edit. This page may be associated with a contactrecord in the endorser's address book. The endorser can either write anendorsement to be “hidden” or she can simply indicate that she isknowledgeable about the target contact and is willing to talk to certainpeople who may be interested. The endorser would then set appropriateaccess control parameters to determine who can view the endorsement.Based on the criteria set by the endorser, the sealed endorsements orendorser contact information would be displayed or kept hidden.

To provide for comparative scoring capabilities (e.g., to allow readerssome common ground with which to evaluate endorsements), a form ofquestionnaire may be provided to a prospective endorser, to be completedwhen she is creating an endorsement. The questionnaire may containquestions to help further clarify the nature and degree of theendorsement such as rating the strength of the endorsement on anumerical scale and similar ratings for particular attributes such ascompetence, skills, ability to work with others, managementcapabilities, etc. The questionnaire may restrict the endorser to usingonly predefined responses, such as rankings or other numerical responsesin addition or in the alternative to the written endorsement. Thepre-set responses can then be counted and/or aggregated with otherendorsements to preside an aggregate endorsement score. A thresholdnumber of hidden endorsements may be required before reporting anaggregate score that includes scores form the hidden endorsements toprevent a user from deducing which endorser may have given the endorseea neutral or negative score. To expose a negative distortion intended toharm the endorsee, a flag can be set or a score questioned that issignificantly out of line with others, especially if out of line withthe aggregate score of all the other endorsements. An endorser couldalso have the option of choosing “No rating” in response to certainquestions if the endorser does not have enough information to rate theuser on a particular attribute or if the endorser does not want to saywhat she really thinks. This data may also be displayed to a searcheralong with the above-mentioned endorsement information.

In addition to any endorsers included in the target's profile, asearcher may want to find other individuals to provide information aboutthe target. This may be done using the facilities of the socialnetworking system to locate contacts of the target or other likelyendorsers. For example, searches for people who list the target as adirect connection, list the target in their address book, work or haveworked in any of the organizations described in the target's profileduring the same time that the target worked there, and/or are connectionof connections to the target may all be performed. Any search resultsmay be returned in ranked order according to any desired criteria.

For example, to sort the results so that the best results appear at thetop, the first order of search may be by degrees of connection betweenthe searcher and the likely endorser. Within the results for each degreeof separation, the following sort order may be used:

-   -   1. People who list the target as a direct connection AND worked        in any of the listed organizations at the same time as the        target.    -   2. People who list the target in their address book AND worked        in any of the listed organizations at the same time as the        target.    -   3. People who list the target either as a direct connection OR        in their address book AND who worked in any of the listed        organizations within the last five years.    -   4. People who worked in any of the listed organizations in the        last five years.    -   5. People who have listed people in their address book who now        work in any of the listed organizations.

These results may be displayed to the searcher, who can then seek moreinformation about the likely endorsers and make contact using any of theabove-described means.

Several other methods may be used to verify or measure a target'sreputation, which methods may also be used to verify or measure thereputations of endorsers of a target. Some of these methods involvereporting objective information that can be readily validated by anexternal trusted third party, including: academic degrees, test scoresand certifications, honors, awards, published reviews and articles,memberships in organizations with verifiable membership and verificationof resume details by employers, clients, schools, certification bodies,and background-checking agencies.

Other methods to verify or measure a target or endorser's reputationinvolve the use of social network analysis. One such method involves ananalysis to measure what is referred to as the Network Measure ofInfluence. This measure is based on the proposition that people who areinfluential tend to have influential networks, and vice versa. Thesemeasures of collective influence of a user's networks may thus be goodindicators of the user's influence and can also be used to measure theinfluence of other users who endorse the user. Two scores may becalculated: a collective influence of the user's endorsers, and acollective influence of the user's mutually-confirmed connections. Eachof these scores may be based recursively on similar scores for each ofthe endorsers or mutual connections that make up the collective score.That is, they will take into account influence of people several degreesdeeper than the profiled user's direct contacts. Influence scores maymake use of known algorithms for measuring status, prestige, andinfluence within a social network, plus additional algorithms derivedfrom analysis of user data from the social network system (see, e.g.,the computations described below). Scores may include weighting toadjust for various factors, including: level of seniority (e.g., derivedfrom current and recent titles, organization size and other measures oforganizational prestige, and length of time spent in recent levels ofseniority); independence (including role and cluster independence);relationships to a searcher (including roles, and degrees and strengthsof connections); and endorsements and influence of endorsers. As above,each of these scores may be based recursively on similar scores for eachof the endorsers or mutual connection that make up the collective score.Minimum criteria for displaying each score may include: having a minimumlevel of information required to derive a statistically valid score,having a minimum level of information required to protect useranonymity, and a profiled user's preference for showing or not showingthe score.

Another method may involve measuring what is referred to as a person'sNetwork Authentication Score. This score authenticates (to some degree)that the user is a real person and that the profiled user's mutualconnections consist of similarly authenticated people. This score isderived by comparing analyses of the user's network to authenticationstandards derived from the entire network. Authentication standards arederived from assessments of the probability that a user's network couldcontain fraudulent nodes (people).

In another embodiment, yet another method may involve measuring what isreferred to as a measure of Network Independence. Analysis of a person'snetwork, and especially analysis of the networks of a person's endorserscan be used to reveal a degree of potential bias or lack of bias. Forexample, if a majority of a user's endorsers tend to know each other andespecially if they also tend to endorse each other, then the potentialfor bias would be greater than if a user has a number of endorsers inunconnected isolates or groups, and if the profiled user does notreciprocally endorse a large percent of those who endorse him/her.

Furthermore, methods of analysis may measure what is referred to asNetwork Diversity Profiles and Metrics. A score for network diversity isnot directly related to reputation; however, it may be included as atool to evaluate a profiled user based on analysis of the user'snetwork. Measures of network diversity may also be used as a componentfor authenticating a person's networks. This proposition assumes thathighly diverse networks are harder to forge (and thus more likely to bereal) than less diverse networks given a norm for an entire network. Asingle metric of network diversity may thus be computed for eachprofiled user and comparisons of a profiled user's network diversity toan appropriate norm derived from the entire network may be presented. Anexample of an algorithm for deriving normative diversity metrics is asfollows:

-   -   For each user in the network, construct a network diversity        profile by first counting the number of and percentage of        contacts in a particular category of network diversity.        Categories may include particular industries, professions,        locations, interests and skills groups, and other relevant        demographics.    -   Parse the total counts for each category into counts for each        degree of relationship to the profiled user. That is, what        number and percentage of contacts in each category are in the        user's direct contacts, 2nd degree contacts, etc.    -   Uncover dusters of users with similar network diversity profiles        using statistical modeling techniques.    -   Use similar techniques to construct normative network diversity        profiles for various combinations of industry, profession, and        location, and to also construct a normative network diversity        profile for the entire network.    -   The network diversity profile for a particular individual will        then be compared to appropriate normative diversity profiles and        given a score based on the results of that comparison.

Still other methods involve use of objective measures derived from thetarget's activity within the social networking system include measuresthat give indications of the target's popularity and influence amongother members of the social network. For example, people who arefrequently invited to connect by others are typically considered to havehigh influence, especially if invited to connect by others who have highinfluence. Likewise, people whose invitations are more frequentlyaccepted by others are considered to have high influence, againespecially if those accepting also have high influence. In oneembodiment, these measures may include:

-   -   Total requests for contact received by the target and percentage        of those requests accepted by the target.    -   Total requests sent by the target and percentage of those        requests that are accepted by the recipients.    -   Total requests to forward requests for contact received by        target and the percentage of those requests that the target        forwards.    -   Total requests forwarded by the user, and the percentage that        are forwarded by the next person in chain.    -   The number of invitations received by the target and the        percentage accepted.    -   The number of invitations sent by the target and the percentage        accepted by the recipient.

Further, these measures can be used to more accurately measure areputation of a user by giving higher weight to endorsements from peoplewith high influence. Some assumptions for measuring influence are:

-   -   People with a large number of mutually confirmed connections        tend to be influential and well connected.    -   People who receive large numbers of invitations tend to be more        influential than people who receive few invitations.    -   People who receive more invitations than they send tend to be        more influential than people who send more invitations than they        receive.    -   People whose total invitations received and accepted are larger        than the number of invitations sent and accepted tend to be more        influential. (By not counting invitations that are not accepted        by either party, this metric removes variances in invitation        acceptance rates that are not related to levels of influence and        popularity, for example influential people who automatically        invite their entire contact list without filtering it for        relationship strength.)    -   People with larger number of invitations accepted are more        popular than those with lower numbers.    -   People whose invitation acceptance rate is closer to 1        (determined by a ratio of total invitations sent by target and        accepted by recipients/total invitations sent by target        (ISA/IS)) tend to be more influential than people with a smaller        acceptance rate.

There are several likely exceptions to the basic assumptions listedabove. These include:

-   -   People who are not active in the social network will have very        few connections in the system. This has no reliable relation to        their connectedness and influence in the “real world”.    -   Social networking “evangelists” may send as many or more        invitations as they receive. They can be detected because they        have both a high number of contacts and high acceptance rates.    -   Members who automatically invite their entire address book may        have a high number of connections but will have lower than        average acceptance rates and low average strength of        connections. When members accept the invitations of people they        do not know well, acceptance rates go up. However, this kind of        acceptance is not a good measure of influence in the “real        world”. When strength of connections is not readily measurable        in the on-line community, this can be very hard to detect.    -   Highly influential and popular people who automatically invite        their entire address books will have low acceptance rates, and        low average strength of connections, but will also have a large        number of strong connections. Thus their invitation acceptance        rates will be higher than the majority of “invitation spammers”        who are not influential.    -   Invitations sent to people who are currently not members of the        social networking system will usually have lower acceptance        rates than invitations sent to people who are already members,        thus this factor must also be taken into account.

Using these assumptions and exceptions, various means can be used toderive measures of influence from a user's social networking activity.In one embodiment, people with “high” influence may be determined using(i) a ratio of total inventions received and accepted by target to totalinvitations sent by target and accepted by recipients (IRA/ISA), and(ii) a ratio of ISA/total invitation sent by target (ISA/IS). Where bothof these measures are in some specified upper percentile (e.g., 20%) ofthe total user population, the associated user will be deemed to havehigh influence within the community. People with still higher scores(e.g., the top 20% of top 20%) will be considered to have “very high”influence. People who qualify as having “very high” influence based ononly one of the two scores and who do not qualify at all based on theother score, will be considered to have “high” influence. These scoresmay be further refined by recursively examining the subject users todetermine whether or not they maintain a minimum number of connectionswith other influential people.

To adjust for the first exception discussed above (i.e., users that arenot particularly active in the on-line community), scores may not becalculated or reported for users with a number of mutual connectionsthat is below a minimum threshold (e.g., 50 connections). Likewise,scores may only be reported for users with either “High” or “Very High”influence. Users will be alerted that while a high influence score is agood indication of influence, absence of an influence score does NOTindicate lack of influence.

To adjust for the second exception, influential social networkingevangelists will be identified by looking for users with threshold ofinvitations sent (e.g., 100) plus a minimum threshold of invitationssent that are accepted by recipients (e.g., 60%) AND/OR a minimumthreshold of invitations received and a minimum value for the ratio ofIRA/ISA (e.g., 0.8). Any person with this indication may be measured forinfluence based solely on ISA/IS.

To adjust for the third and forth exceptions, people who send very largenumbers of invitations (“big inviters”) will be identified as users whoexceed a threshold for invitations sent (e.g., 300). These people may bemeasured the influence based on a lower minimum ISA/IS score than peoplewho invite fewer than the big inviter threshold. They will be consideredto be influential if their invitation acceptance rate is in asignificantly high percentile far other “big inviters”.

To adjust for the fifth exception, invitations accepted by people whoare not currently members of the social networking system will beweighted more highly than invitations sent to those who are alreadymembers. For example, such weighting may be based on a comparison ofaverage acceptance rates for all invitations sent through the system tomembers vs. to non-members.

As will be described in greater detail below, these measures can befurther refined in several ways. One example is collecting data onvarious measures related to invitation acceptance, such as total mutualconnections, IS, ISA, total invitations received, IRA, date registered,date of first invitation, average invitations batch size, title, companysize, country, stale, and industry. Another is to include a large sampleof invitation spammers and add a new variable to indicate whether amember is an invitation spammer. Spammers can be identified based onmeasures such as very large numbers of invitations sent, low acceptancerates, little evidence of influence based on title, company size, andname recognition. A better test is to use strength of connections toidentify spammers by looking for a large percentage of invitations sentto people with low connection strength. This test will also allowadjustment of abnormally low or high scores of invitation spammers, andothers, by discounting invitations sent to people with little or norelationship strength. To do this, a large sample of members who haveuploaded analysis of email transactions and contact lists may be used.Then a minimum test of closeness of the relationship based on frequencyand reciprocity of emails to a specific contact may be made. Measures ofstrength of relationship to invitation acceptance rates given varioustotal number of invitations sent may then be correlated and used to moreprecisely adjust the scores. Invitations sent to people that the senderdoes not know well may and perhaps should be ignored. Another possibleindicator of weak connections is acceptance of a high percent ofinvitations received by people who send a high number of invitations.

A further refinement of the above technique is to include another largesample of people who are categorized based on apparent degree ofinfluence, for example: very high, high, moderate, and low. Heuristicsmay be used based on name recognition, title and organization size tocategorize people into these different groups.

Still another refinement involves the use of multi-variant analysis todetermine correlations between the level of influence and indications ofinvitation spamming to various factors and test measures of influence,and/or derive best measures of influence. Similarly, measures ofinfluence can be determined by request and forwarding activity.Assumptions here are that people are more influential if their requestsare forwarded by their first degree contacts, their requests reach thetarget, their requests are accepted by the target, requests they forwardare forwarded by their contacts, requests that they forward reach thetarget, requests that they forward are accepted by the target, and thepercentage of times a user is chosen to forward a request when the useris one of several of the sender's direct contacts that the sender canchoose to ask to forward the request.

An endorsement interface may be used to display some or all of thevarious measures described above. Various views of the information maybe so provided; among them a short summary form, which may include thenumber of endorsements, the number of sealed endorsements, the aggregateendorsement score, and the aggregate influence score. An option may beprovided to allow a user to obtain further detail regarding some or allof these metrics, which detail can include some or all of the data andmeasures described above (such as reputation indicators related to atarget's networks and/or reputation indicators related to a target'ssocial networking activity). For example, a list with a comparison ofall endorsers for a target may be displayed. This can include thestrength of the endorsement, the relationship of the endorser to thetarget, the relationship of the endorser to the searcher, an apparentreliability score, a quick link to the endorsement, a quick contactlink, an indication of whether or not there is a role or relationshipbetween the endorser and the target that is related to the searcher'spurpose, the degrees of connection between the endorser and thesearcher, an indication of whether or not there is an apparentindependence of the endorser from the endorsed, apparent independence ofthe endorser from other endorsers, and the endorsement reputation scorefor the endorser. The user may be permitted to customize these views toremove items she is not interested in.

Information about the endorser can also be customized to the searcher.The concept of “reputation” is often understood to be relative to theperson who is interested in the reputation (i.e., here the searcher).For this reason an interface may be included that presents informationabout endorsers and endorsements that are especially relevant to thesearcher. In one embodiment, the reputation system 41 may compare therelationship of the endorser to the endorsee to the relationship mostlikely intended between the searcher and endorsee and highlight orpresent those endorsers where the match is most relevant. In addition(or as an alternative), the reputation system 41 may highlight endorsersthat are especially close to the searcher based on degrees and/orstrength of connections, and/or other affinities (e.g., havingmembership in the same trusted group).

In some or all of the above-described embodiments, aggregate, ratherthan raw, endorsement or reputation scores may be used/provided. Manyforms of such aggregation are possible, among them:

-   -   An average of all endorsements,    -   An average of sealed endorsements (which may be reported if a        sufficient number of sealed endorsements exist),    -   An aggregate weighted score for independence (e.g., including        role and cluster independence),    -   An aggregate weighted score for relationships to the searcher        (e.g., including role and degrees/strengths of connections), and    -   An aggregate weighted score for endorsements of endorsers.

Reputation Indicators in a Social Networking Scheme

According to one embodiment of the invention, various reputationindicators are generated to reflect different categories and levels ofreputation for an individual user of the social networking community.For example, according to one embodiment of the invention, a reputationindicator may include a graphic image, or icon, to communicate a type,or category, of reputation. In addition, the graphic image representingthe particular category of reputation may vary to indicate the overalllevel, or measure, of reputation for a particular user with respect tothat particular category of reputation.

In one embodiment, for each user other social networking community, anunderlying aggregate score is computed for each reputation category. Auser's aggregate score for a particular category of reputation is thenused to determine what variation of a particular reputation indicatorshould be displayed for that user. For example, a user's aggregate scorefor a particular category of reputation may be compared to a range ofscores. Depending upon the range in which the user's aggregate scorefalls, a particular reputation indicator will be displayed to indicatethe reputation category, as well as the range in which the user'saggregate score falls. Accordingly, in one embodiment of the invention,a user may search to find other members of the social networkingcommunity having an aggregate score for a particular category ofreputation that is within the same range as the user's aggregate score.

In one embodiment of the invention, for one or more categories ofreputation, a threshold value is established. Accordingly, the thresholdvalue may be utilized to determine whether a particular reputationindicator for a particular reputation category should be displayed. Forexample, in one embodiment of the invention, if a user's aggregate scorefor a particular category of reputation does not exceed the thresholdvalue, then no reputation indicator for that particular category ofreputation is displayed.

In one embodiment of the invention, additional information may bedisplayed along with a particular reputation indicator. For example,when an aggregate score for a particular category of reputation isuseful in communicating a precise measure, then the aggregate score,indicated by a number, may be included with the display of thereputation indicator. Furthermore, additional information for aparticular reputation indicator may be communicated via one or moreassociated links displayed with the reputation indicator. For example,an interactive link (e.g., a hypertext link, or hyperlink) may bedisplayed along with a reputation indicator. Alternatively, in oneembodiment, the graphic or icon that is the reputation indicator mayitself be a hyperlink. In either case, when selected, the hyperlink maylead to the display of additional information, such as details regardingthe meaning of the reputation indicator, or what factors (e.g., metrics)are used to calculate the aggregate score for the reputation indicator.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of various reputation indicators 50 for acategory of reputation measuring the number of direct member connectionsa particular user has established in a social networking community. Forexample, in one embodiment of the invention, a category of reputationmay be based on the number of member connections an individual user ofthe community has established with other members. A direct connectionmay be established in one of a variety of ways. For example, a member ofthe social networking community may send an email inviting a friend toregister with the social networking community. By accepting theinvitation and registering with the online social networking community,the member's friend establishes a direct between the two. Accordingly areputation indicator for member connections will reflect that the userhas a direct connection with the friend.

As illustrated in FIG. 3, in one embodiment of the invention, thereputation indicators for member connections appear as circular icons.In each circle, a central dot is shown with one or more spokesconnecting the central dot to a smaller dot. Accordingly, each smallerdot may represent a member to which the user has established a directconnection. Moreover, in one embodiment of the invention, when an iconfor member connections is displayed, it is displayed along with thelabel (e.g., “1 CONNECTION”) shown in FIG. 3. Alternatively, in oneembodiment, the icon representing the reputation indicator for memberconnections is displayed without a label. In one embodiment, the iconmay be a hyperlink directed to an Internet document (e.g., web page),including further information about that particular user's directconnections, including the user's actual aggregate score (e.g., numberof connections) for the reputation category for member connections.

In one embodiment of the invention, the reputation indicator for memberconnections indicates an exact number of direct connections that aparticular member has established. For example, in FIG. 3. thereputation indicators with reference number 52 are pictorially accuratein the sense that each spoke represents a direct member connection.Accordingly, for a particular user with an aggregate score of five forthe reputation category for member connections, the correspondingreputation indicator will display five spokes.

Alternatively, the reputation indicator may indicate a range. Forexample, in FIG 3. the reputation indicators with reference number 54may be utilized to indicate a range in which a user's aggregate scorefor member connections falls. For example, if a user has establishedtwelve direct connections with other members of the social networkingcommunity, the first icon with the label “7-15 CONNECTIONS” may bedisplayed to communicate that the user has established a number ofconnections within that particular range. The icon 54 labeled with “500+CONNECTIONS” may be displayed when a particular user's aggregate scorefor member connections exceeds a threshold value of five hundred.

It will be appreciated that the particular icons illustrated in FIG. 3have been provided as examples and are in no way meant to limit thepresent invention. In different embodiments of the invention, a widevariety of graphics, symbols, text, and/or icons having one or more ofthe qualities and/or characteristics described herein may be used asreputation indicators for the reputation category for memberconnections.

In one embodiment of the invention, reputation indicators are used tocommunicate various qualities or attributes associated with a particularmember of the social networking community. For example, as describedabove, a reputation indicator for member connections may be used tocommunicate the number of direct connections a member of the communityhas established with other members of the community. Accordingly, amember of the social networking community may perform a search, based onone or more reputation indicators, to identify other members withparticular qualities or attributes. In this context, and for purposes ofdescribing aspects of the invention, a user searching may be referred toas a viewer, and the person being sought may be referred to as a target.For example, a viewer may perform a search to identify all targetswithin the social networking community with over five hundred directmember connections.

Reputation Indicators in Search Results

FIG. 4 illustrates a search results display, including a variety ofreputation indicators, for a user interface of a social networkingcommunity, according to an embodiment of the invention. The searchresults display illustrated in FIG. 4 includes a variety of informationabout a member of the social networking community. In one embodiment ofthe invention, the information displayed may include information fromthe user's profile, including, but not limited to, information relatingto: the member's career (e.g., current or former title, employer, and/orindustry), the member's education (e.g., schools attended, degreesreceived), areas of interest, and a wide variety of other information.In one embodiment, the search results display may include a digitalphotograph or picture of the member. In addition, according to oneembodiment of the invention, a variety of reputation indicators forvarious reputation categories may be displayed. For example, in theparticular search results display 56 illustrated in FIG. 4, reputationindicators for the following categories of reputation are displayed:network indicator 58, endorsement indicator 60, access indicator 62,activity indicator 64, and verification indicator 66.

One category of reputation indicators, which was briefly describedabove, is a member connections category. Accordingly, the memberconnections category is an indicator of reputation based on the numberof direct connections a particular member has established with othermembers of the social networking community. The member connectionsreputation indicator is one measure of the member's reputation withinthe network. In another embodiment of the invention, the memberconnections category may be referred to as the network reputationindicator, or network indicator 60. Accordingly, the network reputationindicator 60 may be based on considerations other than the number ofdirect connections a particular member has established with othermembers of the network.

In one embodiment, the network reputation indicator 60 is based on amore complex analysis of a member's network connections. For example, inone embodiment of the invention, the aggregate score for a member'snetwork reputation indicator 60 may be based on any one or more of thefollowing:

-   -   Seniority of positions of direct (first degree) and extended        contacts (2nd, 3rd, and 4th degree contacts).    -   Measures of influence of the member's direct and extended        network.    -   Diversity of the member's direct and extended network.    -   Overall, aggregated measures of the member's direct and extended        networks.        These various factors, in addition to the number of direct        connections, may be given different weights and combined to        arrive at a member's aggregate score for a network reputation        indication 60, as described above.

In one embodiment of the invention, the system allows each viewer tocustomize the particular function or formula used to arrive at anaggregate score for one or more reputation indicators. For example, foreach type of aggregate score related to a particular category ofreputation, a viewer may customize the score in order to emphasizefactors of most interest to the viewer. If a viewer is especiallyinterested in finding targets (e.g., other members) with high networkstrength related to a particular industry or industries, the user willbe able to make those kinds of customizations. Alternatively, if theuser is most interested in finding targets with rich access tosenior-level contacts with high influence, those types of customizationsmay be made.

Similarly, each type of aggregate score associated with a particularcategory of reputation may be automatically customized to reflecttypical interests related to particular kinds of searches. For example,the behavior of users of the system may reveal that users searching forsoftware engineers care less about finding targets with high-influencenetworks than do users searching for business development candidates.Customizations in the algorithms employed to calculate aggregate scoresmay thus be derived from various data collection methods, includingexplicit user testing and analyzing user behavior on the system.

Referring again to FIG. 4, another category of reputation for which areputation indicator is displayed on the search results display isendorsements. The endorsement indicator 62 (e.g., the checkmark in FIG.4) represents a measure of reputation derived from an analysis ofendorsements and references provided by other members of the socialnetworking community. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, amember may endorse another member, or refer a member. The endorsement orreference may be broad and general in nature, or, alternatively, theendorsement or reference may be associated with a particular aspect(e.g., a service or product) of the member. In one embodiment, theendorsement reputation indicator 62 is displayed only when a member hasat least one endorsement or reference. In addition, in one embodiment ofthe invention, additional information may be displayed along with theicon for the endorsement reputation indicator 62. For example, in oneembodiment, a simple score showing the number of endorsements receivedby the user may be displayed. In addition or as an alternative, a morecomplex aggregate score may be calculated and reported to reflect acombination of factors, such as:

-   -   A summary score of endorsement ratings provided by endorsers.    -   The aggregated reputation scores for endorsers.    -   Analysis of reputation of endorser's direct and extended        networks of contacts.    -   Measures of independence and objectivity of endorsers derived        from network analysis.    -   Measures of extent of endorsers' qualifications and relevance to        the type of search conducted by the viewer.    -   Measures of closeness of endorsers' relationship to the viewer.

In one embodiment of the invention, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the searchresults display includes a reputation indicator representing the levelof access a member has to another member. Accordingly, such a reputationindicator may be referred to as an access indicator 64.

One of the main advantages of social networking systems for enhancingreputation information is that social networking systems not onlyprovide unique reputation metrics, but they also help users gain trustedaccess to additional information they need to complete theirevaluations. For example, if two members have a common friend, and eachmember has established a direct connection to that friend via the socialnetworking system, then there may be an inherent level of trust betweenthe two members via their common connection to their friend. The commonfriend provides a path of misted connections between the two members,and accordingly, the trust and potential forthrightness between the twomembers is likely to increase. Consequently, the social networkingsystem may prove a powerful tool in providing one member with trustedaccess to another member. Of course, this may also provide each memberwith access to the other member's network. The access indicator 64allows a viewer to quickly see how closely connected he or she is to atarget, endorsers of the target, and other likely references. Forexample, the social networking system may also be a powerful tool thatprovides the viewer with trusted access not only to the target, but alsoto other people who know the target and who would be willing to act as areference, including people who have publicly endorsed the target, aswell as those who have not.

The factors that may be included in an algorithm for computing anaggregates score for an access reputation indicator 64 include, but arenot limited to, the following:

-   -   Closeness of a viewer to a target.    -   Closeness of a viewer to endorsers of the target.    -   Closeness of a viewer to likely references for the target, for        example, people who may know the target because of being        employed in the same company or due to other likely        relationships.

The algorithm for calculating closeness may include a combination of anyone or more of the following factors:

-   -   Degrees between viewer and the other party.    -   Measures of strength of relationship between parties in the        connection path between the viewer and the other party.    -   Measures of strength of relationship between parties that        includes one or more connections due to common group        memberships, especially group memberships where members of the        group give special access to other members of the group on the        basis of group affinity, even without establishing a direct        connection path between them.    -   Whether the other party to which the viewer is connected is the        target, an endorser, or a likely reference.

To further illustrate how access reputation indicators 64 may beutilized in a social networking scheme, table 1 (below) illustratesseveral different relationships between a viewer and a target that canbe used to obtain reputation-related information.

TABLE 1

V = Viewer; C = Connector; T = Target; E = Endorser; AC = AffinityConnector; LR = Likely Reference

In Table 1, the first example illustrates a viewer connected to a targetthrough two other members, referred to as connectors. Consequently, inthe first example, the viewer is considered to be three degrees from thetarget. Similarly, in example two, the viewer is three degrees from anendorser. In the third example, the viewer is shown to be three degreesaway from both the target and the endorser. In the fourth example, theviewer is connected to a target via a group contact. For example, theviewer may not have established a direct connection to the target, butinstead the viewer may belong to one or more of the same organizations,clubs, or groups, as the target. In example five, the viewer is shown tobe three degrees away from a likely reference.

In one embodiment of the invention, an aggregate score for an accessindicator 24 may be based on one or more of the following factors:

-   -   Count of the number of degrees in shortest path between the        viewer and the target.    -   Count of the number of degrees in the shortest path between the        viewer and an endorser.    -   Count of the number of degrees in the shortest path between the        viewer and a likely reference.    -   If any of the above counts is 3 degrees or less, or if two or        more of the above counts are 4 degrees or less, then display the        Access icon in the reputation summary display.

The above algorithms may be adjusted to introduce other factors as well.For example, in one embodiment of the invention, an affinity groupconnection may be given the same weight as a direct connection. Anaffinity group connection may exist where two members of the socialnetworking community are also both members of the same group, and eachmember has agreed to provide access to other members within the group.

An example of a more complex algorithm combining some of the factorsdescribed above is as follows:

-   -   Find all connection paths between target and viewer. Strongest        paths are those that have the highest minimum strength of        connection between any two connecting parties in the chain.    -   If necessary adjust numeric values for closeness and strength of        connections such that fewer degrees and stronger connections are        higher than more degrees and weaker connections. For example, if        there is a possibility for up to 4 degrees of connection        (closeness) and 4 measures of strength of relationship        (including a common affinity group membership as one of these        measures of strength of relationship), use the following        valuations shown in table 2 (below):

TABLE 2 Closeness Strength Degrees Value Strength Value 1 10 High 10 2 8Medium 7 3 5 Affinity Contact 5 4 3 Everyone else 3

-   -   For each path found, multiply the closeness value by the        strength value to get an overall access score for that path. For        example, if the closeness value is 8 and the strength value is        7, the access score would be 56 compared to the maximum score of        100.    -   Calculate an adjusted access score by taking the highest access        score among all the paths found and multiplying this by a factor        that increases the access score by up to 50% based on presence        of multiple paths that are same strength or within 75% of the        same strength.    -   Repeat steps 1 through 4 for each other type of connection,        (i.e., between viewer and a) endorsers, and b) likely        references). For likely references it will first be necessary to        find all likely references and then find paths between viewer        and likely references.    -   Combine adjusted access scores for each type of connection by        adding them together with an adjusting weight applied to each.        For example, the adjusting weight for access directly to the        target or endorsers may be 1, for access to likely references        the adjusting weight may be 0.6.    -   Adjust weights and scores described above based on a) explicit        user preferences, or b) automated analysis of relevance across        clusters of similar users and types of searches.

In one embodiment of the invention, access reputation indicators 24 mayindicate a particular relationship between two members. For example, theaggregate score representing an access indicator level may increase, notonly when two people have a close connection path, but also when theyhave common interests, backgrounds, or other indicators of affinity. Inone embodiment of the invention, some affinity indicators also serve toact as an extra type of endorsement. For example, people who havegraduated from highly regarded universities may evaluate others morehighly if they have graduated from the same university, or otheruniversities with similar reputations. As another example, people whohave been active in supporting certain social causes may have a higherlevel of trust and empathy for others who have similar interests andexperiences.

In one embodiment of the invention, when a viewer looks at anothermember's profile or performs a search for other members, the system willautomatically search for a match on likely affinity attributes, such asschools attended, group memberships, active social causes, and/orpersonal and professional interests. In one embodiment of the invention,an affinity reputation indicator may be related to an access indicator,but it will not affect the overall aggregate score for the accessindicator. Instead, if there is at least one indicator of affinitybetween the viewer and another member's profile, an affinity indicatorwill be displayed along with the access indicator. In anotherembodiment, a matching affinity attribute affects (e.g., increases) theaggregate score for the access reputation indicator 24. For example, asillustrated in the example user interface of FIG. 3, the affinityindicator may appear as a hyperlinked text string, such as the link 36that reads “What you and Jane have in common”.

In one embodiment of the invention, a reputation indicator reflecting amember's activity within the social networking community may bedisplayed. For example, such a reputation indicator may be referred toas an activity indicator 26. Activity by individuals within the socialnetworking system may give important clues regarding reputation andoverall reliability. When property analyzed and filtered, these cluesmay, when presented to a viewer, allow the viewer to make the followingkinds of decisions regarding the actions of a particular target:

-   -   Does the member's activity suggest the member may have a good        reputation and be highly influential?    -   Does the member's activity suggest the member may be responsive,        and thus likely to accept or forward requests from others in the        member's network?    -   Does the member have a completed profile, including information        that is up-to-date?    -   Is the member in good-standing with the social networking        community and respectful of community rules of behavior?

Analysis of members' activity may also provides the social networkingsystem with metrics that can be used to automatically weight and sortmultiple search paths to a target. For example, if a search returns atarget person who matches the search and also indicates that there aremultiple paths between the searcher and the target, then analysis of theprior activity of members who are represented in the various search pathoptions can be used to rank the search paths based on which are mostlikely to be successfully forwarded by the intermediary connectors andaccepted by the target.

In one embodiment of the invention, several types of activities may bemeasured and analyzed, including, but not limited to: invitationbehavior (e.g., actions related to inviting, accepting, declining, andignoring invitations), request behavior (e.g., actions related tosending, forwarding, declining to forward, accepting, declining toaccept, and/or ignoring requests), searching, viewing user profiles,completing user's own profile, sponsoring advertisements on the system,sponsoring advertisements that are frequently clicked on, and/orupgrading to, and being accepted for, premium services on the system. Inone embodiment, activity may then be monitored and collected when a useris either the actor or the object of the action (e.g., has been invitedby another user, or has had an invitation accepted or declined byanother user).

In one embodiment of the invention, various factors may influence theaggregate score for an activity indicator 26. For example, in oneembodiment, the factors, or measures, that affect the activity indicator26 may be broken down into the following categories: 1) factors thatreflect or indicate influence, 2) factors that reflect or indicatereputation, 3) factors that reflect or indicate responsiveness, 4)factors that indicate complete and current information in a user'sprofile, and 5) factors that indicate whether a user is abiding by, ornot abiding by, the rules of user conduct. The following lists severalfactors, broken down by the categories suggested above, that may begiven weight in a function or formula for an aggregate score for anactivity indicator 26:

-   -   Factors that reflect or indicate influence:    -   The frequency with which a user is invited to establish a direct        connection with another member.    -   The adjusted percentage at invitations accepted.    -   The frequency with which a user receives requests from other        members.    -   The number of times a user's profile is viewed by others within        a various time period.    -   The frequency with which a user is asked to forward a request.    -   The frequency with which a user is asked to forward requests        when there are multiple paths to a target.    -   Factors that reflect or indicate reputation:    -   Evidence that a target's contacts and endorsers are        discriminating when making ‘trusted’ connections with others        (e.g., declines some connections).    -   Evidence that a target's contact, who has forwarded a request to        the target, is generally discriminating about which requests to        forward (e.g., doesn't forward nearly all requests received from        all connections).    -   Measures that indicate that a target is responsive:    -   Frequency of accepting, declining and ignoring invitations.    -   Frequency of forwarding, declining, and ignoring requests.    -   Factors that indicate complete and current information in a        user's profile:    -   Length of description of current position and specialties (e.g.,        above a minimum).    -   Number of current and prior positions provided.    -   Education section completed.    -   Date of last update to contact information entered by user        (including current company and position).    -   Comparison of contact information completed by user to date and        contents of contact information contributed by other users.    -   Evidence that user is abiding by, or not abiding by, the rules        of user conduct:    -   Frequency of complaints received.    -   Number of people who have broken connection with person.    -   Number of investigated and upheld complaints.    -   Evidence that a user has invited people to connect whom the user        doesn't know.    -   Spamming other users (e.g., using the social networking        community to find people and then sending unsolicited messages        not through the social networking system).    -   Data-mining (high-volume searches and little else)    -   Being a robot (very high-volume searches and other activities)    -   Verified posting of offensive content.    -   Being abusive toward other users.

As with other reputation indicators, not all of the above factors needbe included in determining the aggregate score for the activityindicator 26, and/or whether to display an activity indicator 26. Invarious embodiments of the invention, the formula for determining theaggregate score, as well as the lower threshold value that may be usedto determine whether an activity indicator 26 is displayed, will vary.In one embodiment, the lower threshold and aggregate score will be basedon a combination of an analysis of user behaviors and impliedpreferences, as well as explicit user preferences.

Another reputation indicator that may be utilized in an embodiment ofthe invention is a verification indicator 28. A verification indicator28 may indicate the extent to which information that has been providedby a particular user has been verified, for example, by a third party.For example, in one embodiment, the verification indicator 28 will bebased on an aggregate score that takes into consideration various typesof verifications, including those similar to the following examples:

-   -   A social network analysis showing that an individual and that        individual's network have a high probability of being real. The        score used depicts a level of confidence, from 1% to 100%. lf        the confidence level is 70 or higher, confidence will be        reported as “High”, and otherwise the score will not be included        in the aggregate “Verified” score.    -   Email confirmation of profile by references provided by user. A        “High”score for this will be reported if over 50% of references        respond positively and none respond negatively for example, if        there is no evidence, of significant inaccuracies.    -   Third-party verification of basic contact and current employment        information. A positive confirmation with no reported        significant inaccuracies will generate a “High” score for this        measure.    -   Third-party verification of full resume, including employment        history, education and professional certifications. A positive        confirmation with no reported significant inaccuracies will        generate a “High” score for this measure.    -   Authenticated member of an authenticated group related to user's        profession. If user is an authenticated member of at least one        such authenticated group, a “High” score will be generated for        this measure.    -   Authenticated member of another authenticated group. If a user        is an authenticated member of at least one such authenticated        group, a “High” score will be generated for this measure.    -   Publications, including material the user has written, or in        which a user has been interviewed or cited. A “High” score will        be given for the publications measure if the user's profile has        listed at least 3 publications, or at least 1 publication with        an audited count of over 10,000 readers or subscribers.

-   a. In one embodiment of the invention, the verification indicator 28    may be displayed when any one or more of the above verification    measures has a “High” level, or value. In an alternative embodiment,    the verification indicator 28 may have a variety of intensities. For    example, the verification indicator value may have different icons    for different levels of aggregate score. Accordingly, if only one    measure from the above list has a value of “High” then an icon    representing the lowest level of verification may be presented.    However, if several measures from above have “High” levels, then an    icon representing a higher level of verification may be displayed.    Furthermore, in one embodiment, the icon or graphic for the    verification indicator may vary if the verification is from a third    party, acting in independence. Moreover, in one embodiment of the    invention, the aggregate score for the verification indicator 28 may    be customized by explicit user preferences, for example, if a user    indicates that some measures should receive higher, lower, or zero    weight in calculating the aggregate verification score. In addition,    the aggregate score may also be customized by analysis to calculate    weights assigned to verification scores for various types of search    objectives or other objectives.

In one embodiment, any of the underlying values (e.g., rating or score)associated with a reputation indicator described herein may also be usedas a parameter or search criteria in a search. That is, when performinga search for a person having particular attributes, the searcher mayspecify that the potential target have a reputation score or rating thatexceeds a particular threshold, or is within a particular range. Forexample, a searcher may specify as search criteria a desired minimumnumber of direct connections that a user has established. Accordingly,only users of the social networking system who have established thedesired minimum number of connections will satisfy the searcher's searchcriteria. Moreover, any one of the previously described scores orratings associated with a reputation indicator may be used as searchcriteria in a user's search.

Detailed Display of Reputation Indicators

In one embodiment of the invention, after a viewer has identified atarget of interest in a search results display 16 such as thatillustrated in FIG. 2, the viewer may select a link (e.g., a hyperlink)to view detailed information about one or more of that target'sreputation scores associated with the target's reputation indicators.For example, the viewer may re the “VIEW REPUTATION DETAILS” link 30shown in FIG. 2. Accordingly, a reputation indicator details page 32,such as that illustrated in FIG. 3 may be shown to the viewer.

As illustrated in FIG. 3, a detailed reputation indicator display 32includes detailed information about various reputation indicators andtheir underlying aggregate score. For each type, or category, ofreputation indicator, additional information, including links to yetgreater detailed information, is displayed. Each reputation indicatorshown on the display in FIG. 3 corresponds with a reputation indicatorillustrated in the search results display illustrated in FIG. 2.Furthermore, for one embodiment of the invention, for each reputationindicator, or section, shown in FIG. 3, one or more items may beselected (e.g., clicked with a pointer device) to generate a new view(e.g., open a new window) focusing only on that section/indicator (e.g.,Connections and Networks; Endorsements and Endorsers; etc.). Moreover,for one embodiment, one or more sections of the display illustrated inFIG. 3 may include one or more sub-sections, and in some cases summaryscores for those subsections. For example, a sub-section may exist wherean aggregate score is based on several measures. Each subsection may beassociated with a measure that makes up part of the aggregate score. Forone embodiment of the invention, reputation indication will only bedisplayed if the underlying aggregate score for the indicator is over athreshold level needed to report the reputation indicator.

Referring again to FIG. 3, for one embodiment of the invention, when auser selects (e.g., clicks) on an interactive link under one of thesection headings, the user may be directed to a new page, specificlocation on the page, or a section of a page focusing on thecorresponding indicator or sub-indicator. In one embodiment of theinvention, the details page for each indicator/sub-indicator mayinclude:

-   -   Details and scores for each sub-measure, or factor, that is used        to determine the aggregate score for that indicator.    -   Explanations or links to explanations regarding how a sub-score        or aggregate score is calculated.    -   Interface items or links to a new page where the user can        customize the algorithms for calculating scores and displaying        indicators (e.g., by adding, removing, or changing the weights        applied to sub-section indicators).

In one embodiment of the invention, each reputation indicator isdisplayed along with additional information. For example, in the“Connections and Network” section, summary information may be displayedrelated to a user's level of seniority. In one embodiment of theinvention, a table may be displayed showing how much experience the userhas had in different levels of seniority during the past five years, andsimultaneously showing the level of prestige of the user's organizationas indicated by organization size and/or other measures. For example, inone embodiment, a table such as table 3, below, may be shown:

TABLE 3 Within the last five years: CEO/President 2 years inorganization with 50-100 employees CXO/EVP/SVP 3 years in organizationswith 1000-5000 employees

In embodiment of the invention, a link may be included for additionalinformation related to the level of diversity of a user's network.Information about a user's network diversity may be displayed asillustrated in table 4 (below):

TABLE 4 1st degree 1st and 2nd User's Total Diversity parameterConnections Degree connections Network Industries # and % # and % # and% Industry with most Information Information Information contacts.Technology Technology Technologoy Industry with next Finance AccountingLegal most

A user performing a search may also like to know how rich andinfluential a profiled user's network is in a few particular parametersthat the searcher is interested in. For example, the searcher may belooking for business development specialists in the aerospace industry,so the search will especially be interested in the richness andinfluence of a profiled user's network related to that industry.

In one embodiment of the invention, the profiled user's network strengthwill be automatically calculated for parameters specified in thesearcher's search instructions. For example, if a search is performedfor aerospace engineers in Denver, then the number and percentage of theuser's contacts, by degree, will be shown for aerospace engineers, andfor people living in Denver. Accordingly, this automatic calculation anddisplay will be augmented by a search tool for displaying a user'snetwork for a particular parameter. For example, the user may enter anindustry, profession, or location and see the number and percentage ofcontacts among a user's mutual connections, endorsers, 1st and 2nddegree connections, and entire network. This allows a searcher to take alook at the user's connections and endorsers within a specific parameterrelated to the searcher's interests.

Additional information may be displayed in the “Endorsements andEndorsers” section as well. For example, in one embodiment, thefollowing information may be displayed, in table format, or otherwise:

-   -   Endorser's name (and link to more information about endorser,        including endorser's own reputation)    -   Position endorsed    -   Relationship to profiled user    -   Relationship to the current viewer (Searcher)    -   Endorsement date    -   Link to endorsement text    -   Rating (if available)    -   Endorser's own reputation score    -   Endorse's independence score (independence from profiled user        and other endorsers)

In one embodiment of the invention, particularly when additionalinformation is displayed in a table format, a user may be able to easilycustomize the view of endorsement date by the following methods:

-   -   Sorting or filtering the table based on contents of any of the        columns in the table.    -   Clicking on a button or link (“Endorsements related to your        search”) to only show endorsers that had a relationship to the        endorsed that is related to the viewers purpose. For example, if        the viewer is looking for a consultant, then the viewer will be        especially interested in endorsements by clients; and if the        viewer is looking for a an employee, the viewer will especially        be interested in endorsements by supervisors or peers of the        profiled user.    -   Clicking on a button or link (“Endorser's Close to You”) to only        show endorsers that are within a specified degree of connection        to the Viewer.

In one embodiment of the invention, along with the reputationindicators, there may be displayed a section (e.g., the “Take Action”section illustrated in FIG. 3) associated with various actions theviewer can take. In one embodiment of the invention, a link may bedisplayed that allows the viewer to make contact with the target or oneor more endorsers. For example, if a network analysis reveals one ormore close endorsers, a section may be displayed allowing the user toinitiate contact with one or more of these endorsers. In one embodiment,the interface may show what methods for contact are available, forexample:

-   -   Request contact directly with the endorser (if permitted by the        endorser and/or the person endorsed).    -   Request contact through the person endorsed.    -   Request contact through a chain of connections between the        viewer and the endorser, with options of choosing connection        paths that will not go through the endorsed, or that will go        through the endorsed.

The interface may also include sample text to include in a message tothe endorser, with data automatically filled in to let the endorsereasily see who the sender (e.g., searcher) is, who the person endorsedis, and what the nature of the search is.

Thus, methods and systems for reputation evaluation of online users in asocial networking scheme have been described.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method for matching aplurality of results to a search request, the method comprising: storinga plurality of relationships between a plurality of members of a socialnetwork, the plurality of members including a searching member and aplurality of target members; receiving the search request, the searchrequest initiated on behalf of the searching member; processing thesearch request to identify the plurality of results, the plurality ofresults including profiles of the plurality of target members; analyzingthe plurality of relationships to determine the diversities of thenetworks of the plurality of target members, the diversities beingsuggestive of authenticities of the profiles of the plurality of targetmembers, wherein the analyzing of the plurality of relationships isperformed by a processor; and sorting the plurality of results forproviding to the searching member based on the diversities of thenetworks of the plurality of target members.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein the diversities of the networks of each of the plurality oftarget members is based on percentages of contacts of each of theplurality of target members in each category of a plurality ofcategories of network diversity, the plurality of categories of networkdiversity including two or more of industries, professions, locations,interests, and skills.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the diversitiesof the networks of each of the plurality of target members is furtherbased on percentages of contacts of first-degree connections of each ofthe plurality of target members in each category of the plurality ofcategories of network diversity.
 4. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising determining an aggregate score for a network reputationindicator of each of the plurality of target members based on thediversities of each of the networks of each of the plurality of targetmembers.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising deriving a normdiversity of profiles of the members of the social network and whereinthe processing of the search request to identify the plurality ofresults includes comparing the diversities of the profiles of each ofthe plurality of target members to the norm diversity.
 6. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising identifying clusters of members of thesocial network based having similar diversity profiles based on theanalyzing of the plurality of relationships.
 7. The method of claim 1,further comprising generating scores to associate with the profiles ofthe plurality of target members based on the diversities of the networksof the plurality of target members.
 8. A system for matching a pluralityof results to a search request, the system comprising: a memorycomprising a set of instructions; storing a plurality of relationshipsbetween a plurality of members of a social network, the plurality ofmembers including a searching member and a plurality of target members;receiving the search request, the search request initiated on behalf ofthe searching member; processing the search request to identify theplurality of results, the plurality of results including profiles of theplurality of target members; analyzing the plurality of relationships todetermine the diversities of the networks of the plurality of targetmembers, the diversities being suggestive of authenticities of theprofiles of the plurality of target members; and sorting the pluralityof results for providing to the searching member based on thediversities of the networks of the plurality of target members.
 9. Thesystem of claim 8, wherein the diversities of the networks of each ofthe plurality of target members is based on percentages of contacts ofeach of the plurality of target members in each category of a pluralityof categories of network diversity, the plurality of categories ofnetwork diversity including two or more of industries, professions,locations, interests, and skills.
 10. The system of claim 9, wherein thediversities of the networks of each of the plurality of target membersis further based on percentages of contacts of first-degree connectionsof each of the plurality of target members in each category of theplurality of categories of network diversity.
 11. The system of claim 8,wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, based onthe set of instructions, determine an aggregate score for a networkreputation indicator of each of the plurality of target members based onthe diversities of the networks of each of the plurality of targetmembers.
 12. The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processorsare further configured to, based on the set of instructions, derive anorm diversity of profiles of the members of the social network andwherein the processing of the search request to identify the pluralityof results includes comparing the diversities of the profiles of each ofthe plurality of target members to the norm diversity.
 13. The system ofclaim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to,based on the set of instructions, identify clusters of members of thesocial network based having similar diversity profiles based on theanalyzing of the plurality of relationships.
 14. The system of claim 8,wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, based onthe set of instructions, generate scores to associate with the profilesof the plurality of target members based on the diversities of thenetworks of the plurality of target members.
 15. An apparatus formatching a plurality of results to a search request, the apparatuscomprising: means for storing a plurality of relationships between aplurality of members of a social network, the plurality of membersincluding a searching member and a plurality of target members; meansfor receiving the search request, the search request initiated on behalfof the searching member; means for processing the search request toidentify the plurality of results, the plurality of results includingprofiles of the plurality of target members; means for analyzing theplurality of relationships to determine the diversities of the networksof the plurality of target members, the diversities being suggestive ofauthenticities of the profiles of the plurality of target members; andmeans for sorting the plurality of results for providing to thesearching member based on the diversities of the networks of theplurality of target members.
 16. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein thediversities of the networks of each of the plurality of target membersis based on percentages of contacts of each of the plurality of targetmembers in each category of a plurality of categories of networkdiversity, the plurality of categories of network diversity includingtwo or more of industries, professions, locations, interests, andskills.
 17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the diversities of thenetworks of each of the plurality of target members is further based onpercentages of contacts of first-degree connections of each of theplurality of target members in each category of the plurality ofcategories of network diversity.
 18. The apparatus of claim 15, furthercomprising means for determining an aggregate score for a networkreputation indicator of each of the plurality of target members based onthe diversities of each of the networks of each of the plurality oftarget members.
 19. The apparatus of claim 15, further comprising meansfor deriving a norm diversity of profiles of the members of the socialnetwork and wherein the processing of the search request to identify theplurality of results includes comparing the diversities of the profilesof each of the plurality of target members to the norm diversity. 20.The apparatus of claim 15, further comprising means for identifyingclusters of members of the social network based having similar diversityprofiles based on the analyzing of the plurality of relationships.